Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoary

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Hoary

Final (65/0/0) ended 04:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary (talk · contribs) – Hoary has been with Wikipedia since November of 2004, and has close to 6 000 undeleted edits. 1 500 of those edits have been in Project space; User:Hoary has been active with xFD, WP:FAC, the Help namespace, and the Village Pump. While Hoary's main contributions have been making well-written article contributions, I have also seen evidence of this User helping out with dispute resolution, keeping their cool, and reverting vandalism. I am confident that Hoary would not do anything alarming with admin tools, and cannot think of any reason not to allow Hoary to rollback, block, perform page moves and history merges, and delete nonsense without having to find an admin to do it. In short, Hoary is a long-time trusted user with good judgement, a focus on the encyclopedia, and it is time for this user to stop having to clarify that they are not an admin. Jkelly 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept.
In this edit (04:07, 29 March 2006), Hoary typed in the preceding three words but, as pointed out later by Zoe, failed to follow them with the customary four taps on the twiddle key. Despite the lack of a signature, Hoary thereby accepted the nomination. -- Hoary 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<Customary pedantry>That mark ( ~ ) is called a 'tilde' </pedantry>- Richardcavell 06:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes. But since it virtually never operates as a diacritic, I seldom think of it as a tilde. <span class="pedantry">Compare Unicode 0303, "combining tilde". Meanwhile, Unicode 007E is indeed a tilde, but is a "spacing character" in the Unicode spec.</span> -- Hoary 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.pedantry { display: none; } ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. As nom. Jkelly 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No reason to oppose. Moe ε 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, all checks out fine. Sandstein 05:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Will make an excellent admin --Phenz 05:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, other than that it seems you were out skiing from December to February... ;-) --Mmounties (Talk) 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support gladly. He'll make a fine admin. JIP | Talk 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Richardcavell 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support checks out ok, no skeletons that I can see. Go get 'em Tiger! TruthCrusader 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above --Masssiveego 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wiki-student support. My Wikimentor has proven ot be capable of doing good Articles for deletion votes. Hoary...I am so glad...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Leidiot 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. the wub "?!" 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, well deserved --Looper5920 10:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, will do a good job. Proto||type 11:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, A well experienced person. Shyam (T/C) 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - give him a mop - and take away the skis! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Veteran editor, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 15:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support An excellent user. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Hooray for Hoary. --Jay(Reply) 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, and a well-deserved one! :) - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Thunderbrand 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. He probably doesn't remember this, but he was helpful to me when I was new. And, while I hate saying something so boringly unoriginal, I thought he was an administrator. AnnH ♫ 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Yes indeed. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. support several good noms appearing here in a row, I'm glad to see! Grutness...wha? 01:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support will be a good admin --rogerd 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. pschemp | talk 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. jni 09:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support--Jusjih 09:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Reliable, competent, and level headed. Should be an ideal admin. Giano | talk 10:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good edits, answers and nerves. feydey 14:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. JoshuaZ 14:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, roll out the clishe... Hiding talk 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support looks like he should have been an admin for a while now. Nephron  T|C 04:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, seasoned, experienced editor who more than meets requirements. _-M o P-_ 13:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support meets my criteria! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, another good candidate. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Excellent editor who stays very cool during content disputes. Extraordinary Machine 22:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per above. Weatherman90 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Given the length of this list my support seems superfluous but is nonetheless heartfelt. Hoary makes excellent contributions to Wikipedia in a great variety of ways, and always in a genial manner. Pinkville 00:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Edwy 15:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Ugur Basak 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support™. --Rory096 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. -- DS1953 talk 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:39, 3 April 2006]
  54. Support, a great editor. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: seems like a swell bloke. Thumbelina 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I can't believe I haven't voted on this yet. Alphax τεχ 23:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, well deserving Deizio 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --Fire Star 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Uses the preview feature well. - Tangotango 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Late support. Especially like the answers to all the questions below. Nothing to suggest that he would abuse his mop. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --ClarkBHM 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Has been professional in previous encounters. --Mmx1 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Excellent. Covington 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

Neutral

  • I cannot support until the User actually signs his accceptance. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Hoary's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Temporarily blocking those users whose latest vandalism is recent and comes after receipt of Template:Test4; examining and (where appropriate) deleting what's in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Not really. My contributions to featured articles have been trivial, and I've never thought that any article to which my contributions weren't trivial deserved to be featured. One contribution with which I'm fairly pleased: Until I intervened in May of last year, MPP was a redirect to Member of Provincial Parliament; this may make perfect sense for people in and near Ontario but it did not for me, and the fact that M.P.P. redirected elsewhere made even less sense. I turned MPP into a disambig page and had M.P.P. redirect to it. This of course was trivial. What I then had to do was of course to change every other link to MPP to make it instead point directly to the relevant article. I may say that membership of the Ontario Provincial Parliament seemed a splendidly well-developed area of en-WP, and changing what seemed to be hundreds of links (though probably fewer) was a long and tedious task. But the halo I imagined I'd developed during this process was somewhat dented when I got polite messages saying how I could have done a better job. And one article: the recent Hiroh Kikai. It's probably of limited interest (the page history shows a certain, er, pattern to the list of contributors) and it's distinctly incomplete (lacking any illustrative photograph, as I haven't yet got around to asking [in Japanese] for the publisher's permission). But what I'm fairly proud of is that this is the best source of English-language information on the subject that I know of, and is meticulously referenced.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, I've been in some conflicts of editing, although not recently. These conflicts and other users have irritated me at times but they haven't caused me stress.

While I don't plan to respond to comments, I'll try to answer any further questions.

Questions from Masssiveego

1. If a user places in your talk page. "I didn't like your many edits/revert, it sounded like a communist." How would you respond? --Masssiveego 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was all the person said, I'd probably ignore it. That person is within their rights to object to an edit because its perpetrator comes off like a communist (or capitalist or whatever), and is also within their rights to state this on a talk page. But I don't suppose I'd be be bothered to spend time working out what might be meant by an objection (if it is an objection) that's expressed so laconically. If on the other hand somebody claimed lucidly that an edit of mine had pushed a communist (or capitalist, etc.) PoV, I'd consider and respond. -- Hoary 05:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Any particular reason why there are only two pictures uploads? --Masssiveego 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Hoary 05:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. If somebody posted a picture of a person parachuting into Buckingham palace and placed it in the Buckingham palace article. What do you do? --Masssiveego 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Buckingham Palace, I'd first suspect an audacious act of photoshoplifting, but wouldn't rush to allege this. I'd read the article to see what claims were made for the reality and significance of the incident. If none were made, I'd remove the image from the article and write a message on the talk page of the person who inserted it. -- Hoary 05:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No comment required. For the record someone did parachute into Buckingham Palace [[1]]
It's possible that users might expect to find some odd events, it's best to have an open mind. --Masssiveego 09:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ

Could you please expand on your answer to question 3 above about edit conflicts? In particular, could you give actual examples of edit conflicts and briefs summaries of your part in those conflicts and what the final outcomes were? JoshuaZ 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pretend that this question is one that I much welcome, as I prefer to forget about past squabbles. Still, I'll have a bash at it. My approach is to go through anything even slightly dispute-related that's on my talk page right now. (A look at the page history will confirm that any skeleton-removing that I may have done from this closet predated this RfA.)
I. Sicilian Baroque. A dispute over this peripherally involved me. One editor made a great number of changes to it at one time. In the view of another editor, the changes for the worse outnumbered the changes for the better; he therefore reverted. On balance, I agreed with that second editor and I continued to make minor stylistic tweaks to "his" version. A certain amount of what might be called edit-warring, none of it by me, meant that I had to duplicate some of my work. My blood temperature raised a fraction of a degree.
II. Debra Lafave. The talk page shows that I removed a link because it was to an uninformative site. Perhaps unwisely, I then questioned the worth of any article about this woman. That got me called a Nazi, no less. See my response. The "debate" (to phrase it grandly) continued, and got me called a "wikitroll". Either the persistent linker to the uninformative site gave up, or perhaps others removed my link: I don't know; I gratefully "unwatched" what to me was an uninteresting article.
III. Sollog. I got involved in this what seems like a decade ago, when I happened to notice it on VfD (as it was then called). I'm now skimreading the VfD for the first time in ages. As you'll see, I started by voting against and while I appreciated the efforts made to improve the article was unimpressed by the stature of "Sollog" and even less impressed by advocacy by IPs and usernames supporting him. One third or so down the page, within a long comment, I'm called a biassed asshole, a simpleton, an absolute liar, etc. (Coda: "Hoary now SHUT UP and get lost".) And it continues. Marksweep sensibly points out that the dispute is about the article and not Sollog, but I must admit that at that time I was a disputant over both the article and Sollog: being new to WP at the time, I attached too much importance to notability and thought that Sollog's lack of notability (to me, even after reading about him) would damn any article about him. Sollog survived, whereupon the argument turned to what would go into the article. Those with great stamina are welcome to look at the archived talk page (NB immense) and the current one; no doubt I said plenty that can and will be used against me. At times I enjoyed playing whack-a-mole, I must confess. So what happened at the end of it? (i) The numerous contributors who seemed crazed (to me at least) curiously evaporated; perhaps coincidentally, John P. Ennis ("Sollog") was incarcerated. So quite aside from the rights and wrongs of whack-a-mole, there were now no more moles to whack. (ii) One or two less crazed contributors were banned. (User:Sollogfan was one.) (iii) I learned that just about anything that gets a substantial number of hits on Google is "notable". (iv) I learned that notability is anyway not in general a criterion for WP-worthiness. (v) Sane minds took over the article. I gratefully retired from Sollog.
IV. Reading Lolita in Tehran: an article about a book that I have never read and have never claimed to have read. I discovered it as a link from Lolita, a book I have read. It was a battleground between two editors, each uninterested either in providing evidence for his own claims (though one referred to the book itself, assuming or claiming that everything within it was true) or in anything that the other editor said. You can see me in action in the article's talk page. I think I helped the article improve from battleground to, well, mediocrity. I guessed that most sources about it would be in Farsi/Persian (there's even disagreement over which name to use for that), which I can't read. I therefore asked for help at the Pump (probably not the best place) and then here, and then stepped back.
V. "Alternative". I would stay well clear of that dispute if I were you! warns Giano (whose earlier incarnation it was who brought me to WP in the first place). I didn't even know what the dispute was, but I came across it here. Giano, a tireless contributor of informative and fascinating articles, was being rapped for attempting to shoo away one or more users from his page. Perhaps I should have stayed away; after my one minor comment, that's what I did.
So much for what's referred to on that page. Feel free to go through my five "archives" of talk to find anything else that looks juicy and ask me about that/them (not too many, please!). And of course if I've somehow misinterpreted your question, do ask again. -- Hoary 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hoary&oldid=1082477398"